Thirty years after the events of the first film, a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K (Ryan Gosling), unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos. K's discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former LAPD blade runner who has been missing for 30 years.

It's not hyperbole to say that Blade Runner was a cultural touchstone and influenced countless pieces of art since 1982 - design, music, fiction, filmmaking, fashion, whatever. Blade Runner has driven itself under the skin and become as much a part of our DNA as any film has before or since, almost to the point where you can't look at rain and neon in a film and not think of it. The fact that Ridley Scott came back to the film so many times in order to perfect it means that it's a work of art that bears repeat viewing and the same can be said for Blade Runner 2049. It requires repeat viewings, if only to see how and where it reaches you and why.

Without going too much into the story, the story takes up thirty years after the events of the film and sees the state of California covered in a cloud of grey skies and permanent rain. K (Gosling) is a replicant who works with the LAPD to hunt his own kind and retire them. When sent to hunt down an earlier version named Sapper (Dave Bautista), he unearths something that has both a deep, personal connection for him and something much larger than he could possibly imagine. Compared to the first film, 2049's story is far less defined by noir tropes than the original. We may see K slugging back whiskey and wearing a trenchcoat, but there's an emptiness to it that speaks more to K's character than anything else. The film makes a point of introducing characters - such as Robin Wright's blunt police chief referred to only as Madam, or Mackenzie Davis' "pleasure model" character, Mariette - and then either not using them efficiently, or building them in the story only to discard them later on.

The biggest flaw in Blade Runner 2049 is, by far, the structure and the story. Technically, it's nothing short of a marvel and you will not find a better-looking film than this all year - or maybe ever. The way in which Roger Deakins' cinematography works in concert with Denis Villeneuve's use of production and sound design is completely immersive. The screen just washes over you, to the point that you'll almost forget to blink in spaces. Likewise, the echoes of Vangelis' iconic soundtrack is blended together with Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch's take to create something that feels artificial and yet completely of its own world. The use of colour in each scene is so carefully crafted and selected with taste and respect that you can't fault Villeneuve for a second. The same goes for both Gosling and Ford, who both give some of their best performances in years. Ford, in particular, has never been more alive on screen than he is in this - and reminds us all of what a talent he is when he chooses to be. The supporting cast, including newcomer Sylvia Hoeks as replicant henchwoman Luv, all fill out their roles - but the problem is that the story doesn't use them effectively or at all.

It's hard to discuss the story in Blade Runner 2049 without giving away some hugely important reveals, and the film is best experienced when you come at it completely without foreknowledge. However, there's certain threads in the story that either point towards a different outcome written that wasn't excised from the shooting script, or for another film to come after this one. Either way, it's a flaw in something that is by design perfect in every way. Maybe too perfect. There are so many parts of Blade Runner 2049 that fit too seamlessly and too well within the structure of the original, and originality is something that the first one had in spades that this doesn't. Then again, maybe it's not supposed to be original. Maybe it's supposed to be a continuation - and on that basis, it works. It compliments the original, but only in the way that something that doesn't need complimenting.

Simply put, Blade Runner 2049 is an exquisitely made, beautifully realised film. There are so many moments and scenes in this film that'll rank as some of the most gorgeous you're ever likely to see. However, it won't inspire people in the way that the original did because it is, in itself, an elegant facsimile of what came before. Like the replicants in the film, Blade Runner 2049 is cursed with the knowledge and reality of its own existence.

It can't be anything other than what it is - a sequel to something that didn't need a sequel.

While it boasts incredible visuals and immersive, enthralling direction and performances, Blade Runner 2049 suffers from the fact that it never needed to be made in the first place.

Suggested

Comments

Spoiler alert.
I seem to find myself agreeing with much of the above review. It's visually spot on, but doesn't break much new ground - and as said has the feel that it's set up for sequel(s).
It's unclear whether the 'baddie' for example dies (likely not), and ditto K. Harrison F's character seems to be wandering around in public at the end when he should presumably be back in hiding.
The treatment of the replicants poses huge questions with echoes in debates regarding slavery and racial equality - but beyond implicitly posing the question the film doesn't seem to do much with it.
A second viewing didn't reveal much more (?) - except that it relies heavily on the sound track and the viewers not knowing what might happen next first time around to maintain tension.
One of the better this year, but it falls short in some respects...

Mild spoiler alert.
I'm a big fan of the original and have seen it in its various cuts multiple times. I was therefore really looking to this, but unfortunately I was very disappointed. Paint dries faster than this film as the plot (such as it is) inches on over its extremely long running time. I have never before willed a film to get on with it and indeed, when Harrison Ford finally appeared, a voice behind me blurted out "About f***ing time" and it was hard to disagree. I couldn't wait for it to end, but unfortunately I had to. And wait and wait I did. It pains me to say it, but how this boring, over long and yet still incomplete dirge got four stars, I'll never know. While bigger in scope, the faux Japanese dystopian cityscapes weren't as impressive as in the original and unfortunately, it does look like they are setting up another sequel. While there were nods to the original in this movie and the cinematography and score is good, it also had the weirdest (and dumbest!) love scene in all cinematic history! It threw in a bit about replicant rights, but didn't handle that as well as the original either, in my opinion.
I'm sorry to say that if you're a fan of the original, watch that again and don't bother with this unnecessary addendum. Fans of the Fallout video game series may like it more than the average person though!

Not sure what movie the above reviewers were looking at as I couldn't disagree more with most of their gripes with Blade Runner 2049. Ok, I'll concede that the original didn't really need a sequel. It was really a stand alone movie.
However Blade Runner 2049 is still one hell of a sequel (!), that not only compliments the original without damaging it in any way but builds its own intriguing narrative. Gorgeous to look at, amazing soundtrack, thoroughly engaging story and impressive acting from all the cast, even Ryan Gosling (as not his biggest fan).
Harrison Ford for once didn't look like he was 'coasting it' as per his recent Indiana Jones and Han Solo role reprisals. As for the story being too slow and was boring? - good God (!) have you actually watched the original from start to finish?? That one moved along about as fast as tombstone erosion!
Get a grip and don't get stuck in the past. The original wasn't that great (hell, it was a complete flop on first release back in 1982!), it just got better on repeated viewings. I watched it again after I saw 2049 and have to concede that it was not quite as good as I remembered, The replicants in the first movie including Rachel really didn't get enough screen time to develop their characters either...particularly Pris and Leon with fanboy favourite 'Gaff' barely in it at all!
Tired of all the so called fans of the original who can't accept the new movie is actually one of the best movies of 2017 so far (and maybe in a long, long time) as in their somewhat 'less than large' minds are completely stuck in the past and find it impossible to acknowledge that Blade Runner 2049 is a dam good movie if not better than, then at least as good as Blade Runner (1982) in all it's versions!

Not withstanding that the original film was mangled by the studio for the initial release, the quality of a film does not correlate with the number of people who saw it at the cinema. Many bad films do huge box office and vice versa.
I'm not going to lower myself by attacking someone who doesn't agree with my opinion. I'm glad you enjoyed the film. On its own merits, I thought it was slow, over long and boring, as did my friends, none of whom had seem the original.

What a monumental bore of a film. I worshipped the original Blade Runner; I even read the book but this is aimless. This film is in search of a plot and then is why it meanders for two and a half hours. Not even the impressive setting or the stunning Ana de Armas can sustain the flaws in this film. I noticed some people leaving during this. I actually nodded off. At least I'm home now as soon as I finish typing this I'm going to bed; I'll probably dream of electric sheep.

Comments on entertainment.ie are moderated. If a comment breaks our house rules we may need to remove a comment or block a user from commenting in the future. We need this account information to provide this service.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in the comments section are those of the viewer and do not reflect those of Entertainment.ie. Entertainment.ie accepts no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy of viewer comments. Please contact us to report abusive comments